PDA

View Full Version : Radar added to Il-2 series



Feathered_IV
12-29-2008, 07:04 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Viikate is now on my list of personal heroes.

http://www.simmerspaintshop.com/~viikate/RadarTest3.wmv (http://www.simmerspaintshop.com/%7Eviikate/RadarTest3.wmv)

Divine-Wind
12-29-2008, 07:13 PM
Holy crikey http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif What plane is that?

Imagine the possibilities with this...

Metatron_123
12-29-2008, 07:19 PM
That's the coolest thing i've seen in a long time! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/metal.gif

Feathered_IV
12-29-2008, 07:32 PM
I think it is Viikate's new Fokker. A number of these were outfitted with AI equipment.

It is a mammoth understatement to say that I'm thrilled about this. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Once the basic systems are in place, I imagine it could be added to other appropriate aircraft in due course. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif

ElAurens
12-29-2008, 07:35 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

Now all we need is a P61.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Feathered_IV
12-29-2008, 07:42 PM
Where is Waldo_Pepper? He'll go ape when he see this!

CUJO_1970
12-29-2008, 07:46 PM
Incredible. Can't wait for one of these:


http://www.choiquehobbies.com.ar/revista/notas/nj/1.jpg

http://www.choiquehobbies.com.ar/revista/notas/nj/5.jpg

Feathered_IV
12-29-2008, 08:03 PM
Originally posted by CUJO_1970:
Incredible. Can't wait for one of these..

Read my mind mate. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Spectre_USA
12-29-2008, 09:02 PM
Odd.

Most of the Jets I fly in the 3rdwire series already have Radars...

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Jets ain't for kids, eh, El?

R_Target
12-30-2008, 04:53 AM
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

http://i39.tinypic.com/xfujp4.jpg

JG52Uther
12-30-2008, 07:03 AM
A huge step forward.

Choctaw111
12-30-2008, 07:46 AM
Holy Hanna! I had heard that this was being worked on. It looks great!

KG26_Alpha
12-30-2008, 07:57 AM
Hmm

IMHO.

Complete waste of time unless you have the ai turn off their navlights, which they dont, and have restricted vision on the bomber gunners at night.
The Bf110G4 Wide Sau suffers the same fate as this quirky plane will do, its a nice idea but totally flawed due to the current IL2 ai bugs/limitations.

I hope this don't get "cut" into another ac for cheating purposes.

M_Gunz
12-30-2008, 08:03 AM
Wow! Simply... wow!

Jure_502
12-30-2008, 08:37 AM
Originally posted by KG26_Alpha:
unless you have the ai turn off their navlights, which they dont,

This problem is already solved.

FatCat_99
12-30-2008, 09:27 AM
Originally posted by KG26_Alpha:
Hmm

IMHO.

Complete waste of time unless you have the ai turn off their navlights, which they dont, and have restricted vision on the bomber gunners at night.
The Bf110G4 Wide Sau suffers the same fate as this quirky plane will do, its a nice idea but totally flawed due to the current IL2 ai bugs/limitations.

I hope this don't get "cut" into another ac for cheating purposes.

You don't know what you are talking about. Guys who made radar deserve praise for their achievement.

All of the "problems" you are talking about were solved long ago. Functional radar was a problem, not some trivial AI behavior code.

FC

Divine-Wind
12-30-2008, 10:37 AM
Originally posted by FatCat_99:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KG26_Alpha:
Hmm

IMHO.

Complete waste of time unless you have the ai turn off their navlights, which they dont, and have restricted vision on the bomber gunners at night.
The Bf110G4 Wide Sau suffers the same fate as this quirky plane will do, its a nice idea but totally flawed due to the current IL2 ai bugs/limitations.

I hope this don't get "cut" into another ac for cheating purposes.

You don't know what you are talking about. Guys who made radar deserve praise for their achievement. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Definitely. Viikate must've worked his buttocks off to get this working, and all you've got to say is 'lol cheat' http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Waldo.Pepper
12-30-2008, 10:43 AM
Originally posted by Feathered_IV:
Where is Waldo_Pepper? He'll go ape when he see this!

Not quite ape. I am impressed, thought I expect far more than this. Oleg has spoiled me with the accuracy and fidelity of his game. (Bombing sights and the like.)

I want accuracy to history more that this film shows. I am guardedly hopeful - I don't have any mods installed myself though this may change that one day assuming this Radar gets better.

I am sure that this film is merely a prototype of what can be done rather than a serious proposition of what the modder will release. I hope that this is the case anyway, as whatever aircraft it is supposed to be, sadly the display is wrong.

I could go on and on about why this is so, and will should any care to read it, but most find this Radar minutiae boring so I shall bite my tongue - cross my fingers and hope for improvements.

Divine-Wind
12-30-2008, 10:45 AM
Early radar fascinates me, so any details I can learn are always welcome. Please carry on, Waldo! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

BaronUnderpants
12-30-2008, 11:20 AM
Originally posted by FatCat_99:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KG26_Alpha:
Hmm

IMHO.

Complete waste of time unless you have the ai turn off their navlights, which they dont, and have restricted vision on the bomber gunners at night.
The Bf110G4 Wide Sau suffers the same fate as this quirky plane will do, its a nice idea but totally flawed due to the current IL2 ai bugs/limitations.

I hope this don't get "cut" into another ac for cheating purposes.

You don't know what you are talking about. Guys who made radar deserve praise for their achievement.

All of the "problems" you are talking about were solved long ago. Functional radar was a problem, not some trivial AI behavior code.

FC </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Eccept for the AI gunners of course, who will put a large hole in your head long before u even get to think "lets sneak up om him in the dar...WHABAAANG." http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

JG52Uther
12-30-2008, 11:27 AM
For offline missions,against the WIP Lancaster and Wellington etc,I would probably set the bombers to 'empty'.IRL the gunners of British bombers seldom fired I think,the bomber preferring NOT to give its position away by firing its .303 peashooters at attacking nightfighters,and the pilot trying to evade by violent corkscrew manuoevers.
What would be nice would be someone to give the ai bombers a new 'corkscrew' evasion routine!

FatCat_99
12-30-2008, 11:34 AM
Originally posted by BaronUnderpants:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FatCat_99:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KG26_Alpha:
Hmm

IMHO.

Complete waste of time unless you have the ai turn off their navlights, which they dont, and have restricted vision on the bomber gunners at night.
The Bf110G4 Wide Sau suffers the same fate as this quirky plane will do, its a nice idea but totally flawed due to the current IL2 ai bugs/limitations.

I hope this don't get "cut" into another ac for cheating purposes.

You don't know what you are talking about. Guys who made radar deserve praise for their achievement.

All of the "problems" you are talking about were solved long ago. Functional radar was a problem, not some trivial AI behavior code.

FC </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Eccept for the AI gunners of course, who will put a large hole in your head long before u even get to think "lets sneak up om him in the dar...WHABAAANG." http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, they will not, I posted a YouTube video two months ago where bombers don't shot at night.

It's easy to make model better and more elaborate.

That's even more important now when we have functioning radar.It's just a matter of decision what is most realistic, there is no technical limitations in code to make AI behavior better.

@Waldo,
if you have any info conntact Viikate, providing info is best insurance that radar will be modeled correctly although what can be seen in video is first test.

This version is not planed for release as far as I know.

FC

triad773
12-30-2008, 11:55 AM
Waaaaaaaaaaooooowww.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

Now that is pretty cool http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Viikate_
12-30-2008, 12:44 PM
Actually this whole thing is the brainchild of LesniHU. I'm just implementing it and two weeks ago i didn't know anything about airbourne radars. Except that they have those pointy sticks at the nose of the plane.

And what you saw was just after few days of modeling and coding. So if you Waldo know what is wrong, please tell me.

This is what i tried to replicate and I think the basic functionality is correct.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2134/1541155998_1d2224150b_o.jpg


After the video i have added that dotted range line and change of contact pulses when own plane rolls. Roll 90 dec and AZ scope is showing what EL scope normally shows and vice versa. Ground echo is there but not visible in the video.

Also to be added is contacts reflected signal strength depending of contact orientation and better ground echo. So that if you would fly towards mountain, you would see more echo than flying over flat ground.

Any numeric values that are involved with the calculations are basically just a place holders. I didn't know any correct values when i wrote the code. Except the max & min range.

steeldelete
12-30-2008, 01:42 PM
Wow, great! Keep it up! This looks very promising.

Aaron_GT
12-30-2008, 01:51 PM
Now all we need is a P61.

I believe it is spelled M-o-s-q-u-i-t-o http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Aaron_GT
12-30-2008, 02:01 PM
IRL the gunners of British bombers seldom fired

Most crews shot down didn't even see anything to shoot at. Analyses of losses showed no trend for more experienced crews and on analysis it was concluded that the fire was from below (Shrage Musik) and the enemy craft were very hard to spot against a dark ground. Much debate then raged on whether there was much point having gunners at all. Some crews (seems prevalent on Free French Lancasters) removed dorsal turrets.

Daiichidoku
12-30-2008, 02:05 PM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Now all we need is a P61.

I believe it is spelled M-o-s-q-u-i-t-o http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

and pronounced hein-kel zwei neun-zehn oo-hu

CUJO_1970
12-30-2008, 02:19 PM
It's things like this that make me believe that Il/2 will possibly...just maybe...have a life even after SoW:BoB is released.

It looks like the potential is even greater for mods than I originally imagined...the only limit appears to be talented coders and 3D artists.

Aaron_GT
12-30-2008, 02:40 PM
It's things like this that make me believe that Il/2 will possibly...just maybe...have a life even after SoW:BoB is released.

I'm hoping radar will be in SoW early on. Oleg has been seeking information on the Blenheim, and that was one of the first AI equipped machines (trials from 1938).

Waldo.Pepper
12-30-2008, 08:43 PM
This is a bit rambling and I offer my apologies. Too much thinking. Not enough editing.


Originally posted by Viikate_:
This is what i tried to replicate and I think the basic functionality is correct.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2134/1541155998_1d2224150b_o.jpg


I too would say that basic functionality is correct. Under theoretical perfect conditions of operation. Well done.

I had guessed that you modeled the FuG 220 SN-2 set from the false colour screen grab I made.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v516/WaldoPepper/Radar/Guessedthat.jpg

I suppose you know that it was not fitted to single seaters. Yes?

Ideally this set should be modeled for the Bf-110 we have in game. Also it would make for a better game experience if it were modeled for a crew position which is NOT the pilot. I suppose that this must mean for the Gunner. (I don't know the extent of how much you can mod the game.) Or perhaps for a heavily reworked Ju-88. Again for a position which is not the pilot.

If you were intent on modeling a single-seater there are some single-seaters that had a radar during the war. But I think that this is the wrong way to go. Twins are the better option. Better to simulate the team of a pilot and radar observer - which was the norm during the war.

Anyway back to single-seaters for a bit. Corsair/Hellcat each of which had AN/APS-6 with a single display scope and using a 'double-dot' presentation. Suitable only for the Pacific theatre though.

You could also attempt to model a Hurricane II with AI Mark VI (the one with the 4 cannons.) Though only 12 were made, and they achieved absolutely NOTHING. They were never used in combat fitted with their Mk VI Radars.

I think that the best candidate for a single-seater would be the FW190A5 with the FuG 218 Neptun J-3 (the one with the rod arials) This would have also had a single CRT display. This display would show what you have modeled already. However due to the single screen the information would be presented alternately. Azimuth and then elevation depending upon the actions of the pilot. You would need to model a switch to change modes.

Additionally, if I may. I read what you wrote about clutter. Even still the display is far far too clear and definitive. There should be tremendous amounts of interference. If close to the ground. Specifically if at within the range limitation of the radar set there should be a prominent ground return. For example, if the set had a range of 8000 feet, and the altitude of the Radar equipped night fighter was 8000 feet (or below - or was pointed toward the ground I.E. when diving) then there would be ground returns - progressively obscuring and diminishing the useful range of the set. Additionally coming from either side there should be interference described by the AI operators of the time as 'grass'. At times this blots out the majority of the display.

The next bit is a bit of an aside. I am not sure what is possible in game, but ideally, the accuracy (in terms of bearing in both azimuth and elevation) of the radar should be poor - randomly poor if possible. In Allied parlance of the time this was called a 'squint' and was corrected for before any nighttime interception was attempted by a daylight flight called a Night Flying Test (NFT) (or in Americaneze this was occasionally referred to as a Squint Hop.) And would last for under an hour. Two night fighters would participate and function as each others target to format on to account for the inherent, and capricious, inaccuracies of the system.

The Luftwaffe did not follow this procedure and instead used a ground based device to adjust their FuG-220 SN-2 radar called a a Rehbock (Roebuck). There is a picture of this equipment on p-240 of Gebhard Abers - History of the German Night Fighter Force 1917-1945 - for any really interested.

As for a twin for the Allies there are some good candidates in the game. Beaufighter and Mossie spring to mind. However, neither are two seaters (in game terms.) Which if they were, I would think would allow for modding to be easier with a better result.

The UK/US and USSR all adapted the A-20 into a Radar equipped night fighter. The UK mounted AI Mk IV (which is largely similar to what you have made already.) The US mounted SCR-540 (their copy of the the AI Mk IV. The USSR mounted a domestically produced Radar to their A-20's (called Gneis-3) but not much was achieved with the sets. (Not as far as we know anyway! Information on their use and achievements is sparse (in the extreme).

If I can be of any help feel free to PM me, or write to me directly if you wish waldo.pepper@hotmail.com

Esel1964
12-30-2008, 09:15 PM
Very COOL!!
Where's the add-on available?

Choctaw111
12-30-2008, 09:29 PM
Originally posted by Esel1964:
Very COOL!!
Where's the add-on available?

Can't talk about "where to get it" in this forum, Mike.

Divine-Wind
12-30-2008, 10:18 PM
Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Now all we need is a P61.

I believe it is spelled M-o-s-q-u-i-t-o http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

and pronounced hein-kel zwei neun-zehn oo-hu </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
If I remember correctly it is also commonly shortened to simply Pee sixty-one.

Feathered_IV
12-30-2008, 10:27 PM
You're not putting the right inflection on it.
It should be pronounced Gekko. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Choctaw111
12-30-2008, 11:34 PM
Originally posted by Feathered_IV:
You're not putting the right inflection on it.
It should be pronounced Gekko. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

As in the GEICO Gekko?
http://www.grokdotcom.com/wp-content/uploads/Bryan/geico_landing_page_1.jpg

Viikate_
12-31-2008, 12:52 AM
Thanks for the information Waldo. And don't worry, there won't be any Fokker D.XXI night fighter http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif It's just working as a testbed.

Feathered_IV
12-31-2008, 12:58 AM
Originally posted by Choctaw111:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Feathered_IV:
You're not putting the right inflection on it.
It should be pronounced Gekko. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

As in the GEICO Gekko? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As in the Nakajima J1N1-S Gekko http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3159/2911760787_1aee7dd287_o.jpg

Aaron_GT
12-31-2008, 03:30 AM
Wasn't the F6FN also used by the FAA (in the Med?)

Aaron_GT
12-31-2008, 04:47 AM
Where's the add-on available?

Due to the policy on mods if a link is posted it will have to be removed.

stalkervision
12-31-2008, 07:33 AM
Originally posted by Feathered_IV:
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Viikate is now on my list of personal heroes.

http://www.simmerspaintshop.com/~viikate/RadarTest3.wmv (http://www.simmerspaintshop.com/%7Eviikate/RadarTest3.wmv)

This is absolutely and totally amazing!!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Never thought the old Il-2 would ever have it.

This guy deserves a BIG THANKS from all of us. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

Treetop64
12-31-2008, 09:02 AM
In the vid the guy looks like he's doing a poor job of lining up his ILS approach. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Waldo.Pepper
12-31-2008, 04:24 PM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
Wasn't the F6FN also used by the FAA (in the Med?)

The RN took delivery of some Hellcats. But they did not see service, in the Med or anywhere. Here is the story with a bit of a back story. From Nightfighter by Ken Delve...

"At long last the Royal Navy had formed its first operational nightfighter squadron, the various trials, detachments and so on having provided the basic concepts and techniques for employment. The Naval Night Fighter Interception Unit (NNFIU) had visited the US Navy development centre at Quonset Point, Rhode Island, in late 1943 to look at radar development of the AN/APS 4, or ASH, and were impressed by it compact size and overall performance. By mid-1944 ASH sets had been made available for fitting to Fairey Firefly trials aircraft.

Six Fireflies formed the initial complement of No. 1790 Squadron, under the command of Licutenant Commander J. H. Neale, on 1 January. Crews completed a two-month course at Drem, in East Lothian, with No. 784 Squadron, carrying out an intensive programme of night flying, navigation and practice interceptions. It was not until 24 May that twelve aircraft joined HMS Puncher for final work-up deck trials. As two aircraft crashed on landing, the deployment was postponed until the following day, when, in better conditions, the remaining aircraft landed safely on the carrier. It was considered that the crews were now qualified, and the squadron flew new aircraft to Sydenham, ready for embarkation on HMS Vindex transfer to the Far East for the war against Japan. The unit eventually arrived in Australia in August, too late for the wrar; nevertheless, they remained part of the 8th Carrier Air Group.

In the meantime, there had been other RN developments, such as the acquisition of AN/APS 6 equipped Grumman Hellcats in January 1945. These went first to No. 892 Squadron under Major J. Armour, who had been a member of the team that had visited Quonset Point. A second unit also received Hellcats, but neither unit was operational before the end of the war."

Here is a picture. The RN acquired 79 of these aircraft.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v516/WaldoPepper/Night%20Fighter/HellcatNF.jpg

746, 784, 891 and 892 Squadrons were disbanded in 1946.

This account is somewhat incomplete as it totally ignores the first operational AI Radar equipped Night Fighter of the RN. The Fulmar which was fitted with AI Mk IV. Here are some details on that from the same book.

"The latter part of 1942 also saw the Royal Navy brought on to the nightfighter scene, the Naval Staff having commented, in October, that they had reached: '. . . a stage where an operational development unit has become necessary. There is a need for an efficient naval nightfighter at a very early date. It is hoped that the Firefly will fulfill this need.' Naval interest in nightfighters had arisen in 1941, and trials had been conducted with the Fairey Fulmar equipped with AI Mk. IV. Promising initial trials had led to a consideration of carrier trials and the formation of a training unit. Although selected RN crews were attached to RAF squadrons to gain experience, it was not until June that No. 784 Squadron formed as the Nightfighter Training Squadron, equipped with six modified Fulmars. Strength built up only slowly, and the unit moved from Lee-on-Solent to Drem in mid-October. The following month brought further expansion with the creation of No. 746 Squadron as the Naval Night Fighter Interception Unit (NNFIU), the equivalent of the RAF's FIU. It was natural that the two should work together, so the NNFIU's Fulmars moved to Ford in December."

And also...

"... in March (1944) that the Fleet Air Arm at last took its Fulmar nightfighters to sea, No. 784 Squadron attaching Flights to other units. Bl Flight to No. 813 Squadron on HMS Campania, B2 Flight to No. 825 Squadron on HMS Vindex, and B3 Flight to No. 835 Squadron on HMS Nairana."

They achieved no kills on that deployment.

The following is from the Warpaint book on the Fulmar.

"First to embark was the flight that joined the Nairana, on 24 February 1944. The three night-fighter Fulmars remained aboard the escort carrier until 15 March. They escorted convoys OS69/KMS43 bound to Gibraltar. On the way back to England, protection was given to convoy MKF29. The Fulmar NF Mk.IIs had no opportunity to fly at night or to intercept enemy aircraft. Despite appalling weather, they managed to fly a handful of day missions but two of them were damaged in deck-landing accidents."

On 15 April 1944, the sub-flight of 784 Squadron joined 825 Squadron aboard the Vtndex. The spell aboard the escort carrier was particularly short as the Fulmars returned ashore on 23 April. The Fulmar NF Mk.lls attached to 813 Squadron were embarked on 13 March 1944. Except for four short periods ashore, the Fulmar flight was aboard the Campania for almost one year, returning home on 1 March 1945.

In June 1944, HMS Campania joined HMS Activity to escort convoys SL159/MKS50 and OS79/KMS53. The following month, the Campania accompanied convoys OS82/KMS56 and SL163/MKS54 and, in August, convoys OS85/KMS59 and SL166/MKS57. The Campania sailed together with HMS Striker in September to cover Russian-bound JW60 and homebound RA60. November saw the Campania sail twice for the passage of convoys JW61A, which repatriated Russian PoWs, and RA61A and then, in conjunction with Nairana, JW62 and RA62. Both the Campania and the Nairana escorted JW64, which had sailed from the Clyde on 3 February 1945, bound for Murmansk. A Fulmar NF Mk.ll was flown off Campania, on 8 February, in order to intercept a shadowing Ju 88. After a 90 minute chase, the Fulmar had closed to within a mile and a half of the German aircraft. At this moment, the radar broke down and they were compelled to give up the interception. On landing, Sub-Lt K.M. Hicks crashed into the barrier of HMS Campania, after the arrester hook had failed. The aircraft was written off and no more use of a Fulmar was made aboard an aircraft carrier and all remaining Fulmars quickly scrapped."

Waldo.Pepper
12-31-2008, 05:11 PM
Some further comments on the SN-2.

In case you are interested in pursuing this particular Radar it had a limitation until "early 1944" that should be modeled I think.

Most people tend to think that that maximum detection range of an AI Radar is the all important characteristic. To be certain this is important. But in the early days of the development of AI Radar the MINIMUM range was the great challenge.

In order to achieve a kill a target must be brought into a range that is close enough that a pilot can achieve the kill visually. Nightfighter crews on both the Allied and Axis side were overwhelmingly concerned with not shooting down a friendly.

The UK rules of engagement required that the bogey be confirmed VISUALLY before it could be engaged. The only exception to this was is a bogey were encountered landing or taking off over the continent. (A sensible exclusion to the rule).

The greatest stumbling block that lay in the face of the creation of the first AI Radars in Britain was overcomming the minimim range challenge.

To return to the SN-2 now. The great limitation of this set (at least initially) was its MINIMUN range. So great was this deficit, and of such concern was the fear or shooting down a friendly that on some aircraft the Luftwaffe took the extreme step of installing a second Radar set that had the necessary minimum range capability that the SN-2 orinigally lacked. This famous Bf-110 for example.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v516/WaldoPepper/Night%20Fighter/GermanFuG202FuG220Lichtensteinairbo.jpg

Please note the second (the inner smaller) set of antenna on the nose.

From the Abers book page 78.

This system had wing-mounted aerials and proved to have a very poor minimum range of 1,200m (3,937ft). This was over come by using a FuG212, resulting in a rather heavy and unwieldy installation.

Further to this problem... from the same book page 123-124

"Of the total of 300 SN-2's manufactured by early November, only 49 had been fitted to night fighters, of which only 12 were serviceable. It was not until early 1944 that Telefunken finally managed to master SN-2 production; the company also established several radar installation centres which doubled as training schools for maintenance crews and airborne operators. From then on things began to move quickly: the 200th SN-2 was delivered to the night fighter force in early spring, followed by the 1,000th set in May. By that time the close-range definition had been improved to such an extent that the separate aerial for the B/C or C-l - the so-called 'Wide-angle aerial' which took over between 1,000 and 300m (3,280-984 ft) - could be deleted. This meant that the radio/radar operator now had to observe only three instead of five display screens, much simplifying his task. The deletion of this aerial also improved the aerodynamics of the aircraft. Production of the older Lichtensiein sets continued until mid-1944 because they could still be used in the East and South, where there was no Window interference. The few night fighters of the Italian, Hungarian and Romanian air forces were also fitted with Lichtenstein B/C or C-l radars.

Developing accurate AI radar for the game is a challenge. Some more food for thought. Hope someone finds this of use/interest.

M_Gunz
12-31-2008, 06:51 PM
Excuse me please for asking what's probably already been explained, but AI is Aircraft Intercept or something else?

No R's in there....

PS Waldo, Verizon dropped over 50,000 newsgroups because 10 or 12 were reported to have kiddie porn (I don't approve of at all)
so that cut ALL but rec., comp.m, etc. Since May I haven't been to the aviation group. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif What I've missed....

mhuxt
12-31-2008, 08:53 PM
AI = Airborne Intercept

<S> Waldo

Flight_boy1990
12-31-2008, 09:55 PM
Originally posted by Waldo.Pepper:
I think that the best candidate for a single-seater would be the FW190A5 with the FuG 218 Neptun J-3 (the one with the rod arials) This would have also had a single CRT display.

The only FW-190 Anthons to have radars are FW-190 A-6/R11 (those were in serial production and some number was produced) which had the FuG 217 Neptun J-2 radar,and the some FW-190 A-8's with SG 116,through i don't know if it entered serial production.
http://i293.photobucket.com/albums/mm63/GringoBG/036.jpg

And guys don't turn this as wish list to Viikate and Lesni.The way that the german and allied radars were working is very,very different.So i don't think that anyone of you have any idea how to write brand new java core for each new type of radar.
Hopefully another radar will be released with the P-61 when it's ready and released!And the P-61 will be ready soon,hopefully.
The way that those new radars and a/c are released will guarantee that those new add-ons to IL-2 won't be "hackable".

Waldo,the radar that you saw in the movie is in very early stages of what it will become.The FUG 220 radar interface is still very WIP.
So everyone don't turn this into your wishlist.
I know you all want to see all the WW2 birds in IL-2,i want too.But it's not work that can be done for 2 days.

ps: Viikate,i couldn't say this untill now,but you guys broke the darkness arround the IL-2 with this!Congradz to the guys there! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
This FUG 220 is big step to bringing alive G-4 ingame and also alive FW-190 A-6/R11! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
Althrough the real JG54 never flew nightfighter version of the FW-190,but now i smell that in the virtual I/JG54 will be formed some nightfighter schwarm! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Aaron_GT
01-01-2009, 03:52 AM
The RN took delivery of some Hellcats. But they did not see service, in the Med or anywhere. Here is the story with a bit of a back story.

I should have read one of the books I have. It's called 'Nighfighter' by Ken Delve http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

stalkervision
01-01-2009, 07:48 AM
This add-on is so potentially outstanding it may open up the whole British night offensive campaign. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Waldo.Pepper
01-02-2009, 09:46 PM
As always reality is far more complicated than we would like.

Not looking to start a debate or anything but I am sorry but it is not correct that...

Originally posted by Flight_boy1990:
The only FW-190 Anthons to have radars are FW-190 A-6/R11 (those were in serial production and some number was produced) which had the FuG 217 Neptun J-2 radar,and the some FW-190 A-8's with SG 116,through i don't know if it entered serial production.

Or did you mean to say ... only A8's were in mass (serial) production? If this is what you were getting at I don't think that this matters. Mass production is/was no guarantee of availability for some pieces of equipment. I still think that it would be best if a radar for a FW ever sees the light of day for the game, that the earliest edition (one on an A5 were modeled.) Earlier plane set would be better. But again this is all opinion I suppose.

Here are some A5's.

Here is a page 16 from 1940-1945 Chasseurs de Nuit De la Luftwaffe (Atlas Publications). That quite clearly shows an A5 with a Neptun installation.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v516/WaldoPepper/Night%20Fighter/PagesfromAtlas6108Luftwaffenightfig.jpg

And here is page 18 of Luftwaffe Night Fighter Units by Scutts. Again note the A5.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v516/WaldoPepper/Night%20Fighter/PagesfromLuftwaffeNightFighterUnits.jpg

And here is page 259 from Confound and Destroy by Streetly that shows the same A5.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v516/WaldoPepper/Night%20Fighter/PagesfromJanesConfoundandDestroy100.jpg

And here is another extended quote, from the Abers book again, giving a description of the efforts of the Luftwaffe to equip single engine/seaters with AI.

Page 125 of Abers

"More successful were the trials with the FuG 217 Neptun-J, evolved from the FuG 216 tail-warning radar. As some versions of Neptun had proved suitable as radio altimeters and in the ASV role, Milch's staff experts were hopeful that it might be possible to develop a low-altitude AI radar by combining the aerial of one system with the processing equipment of another. Though this was not to be, Neptun had several other advantages over the SN-2: it was capable of approximately the same performance but weighed only half as much, was easier to maintain, and could display all three parameters (range, azimuth and elevation) in turn on the same screen. All this made Neptun-J seem highly suitable for single-engined fighters, and in autumn 1943, at the instigation of Gordon Gollob, five FW 190s of the French-based JG 2 were fitted with Neptun-J. This gave the Luftwaffe the world's first all-weather fighter. Thanks to the streamlined rod aerials these aircraft were little slower than the "pure" day fighters, and so were reasonably successful in action. However, by December this use of Neptun near the Channel coast was looking too risky to Galland and Martini, who feared an untimely discovery of the system by the British during their daytime operations. They therefore recommended further Neptun tests over the Reich territory, especially since Maj Hermann was also demanding the system for his 'Mosquito hunters'. Early in 1944 35 FW 190 and Bf 109 fighters were equipped with the Neptun-J and underwent operational trials (mainly with NJGr 10). These pilots were not exactly enthusiastic about the new radar. True enough, detecting and following a target were no longer a problem, but difficulties began to appear during the final approach to a firing position. After staring into the display screen for long periods the pilot had lost practically all his night vision, so that on lifting his head and searching for the bomber in the darkness he could see nothing. Nevertheless, development was pushed ahead so as to have a second iron in the fire in case the SN-2 did not prove itself or was jammed by the enemy."

And page 127-128

The single engined night fighting force had its own problems. In the beginning it was flying the same types as the day units - the Bf 109G-5 and G-6 and the FW 190A-5 - then the Gruppenstab sections and one Gruppe each of JG 300 and 302 received their own aircraft. The Stab aircraft were without exception FW 190s, while the Gruppen equipment comprised Bf 109G-6/U4 with 2 x MK 108 cannon in underwing gondolas. In addition, there were a few Bf 109G-5s for Mosquito hunting. These aircraft were powered by DB 605AS engines with DB 603 'Gustav' superchargers and featured the GM-1 installation. The armament consisted of one cannon firing through the propeller boss and 2 x MG 131s above the engine. The FW 190 fighters flown as 'Mosquito hunters' under the Himmelbett system by JG 300 from Hangelar in late summer were purpose-built variants of the A-5 series, specially lightened and highly polished by the ground crews. From the late autumn onwards the cadre aircraft of the single-engined night fighter force were modified at the front-line workshops to meet specific operational requirements. These modifications included a flashing identification light under the port wing, heated armoured glass panels, protective fabric blinds at the cockpit side panels which could be pulled up by the pilot when he flew into a searchlight cone, ultra-violet illumination of the instrument panel, and anti-glare screens over the exhaust stub slots. The radio equipment comprised the FuG 16ZY, FuG 25a IFF set and a long-wave running commentary receiver. In the spring of 1944 the Bf 109s received the Erla clear-view cabin glazing (today wrongly described as the 'Galland hood') and the Galland armour plate behind the pilot's back. The 'Mosquito hunters' were also supposed to have fully faired main undercarriage wheel wells and a retractable tailwheel, and the aircraft were to be sprayed with a special high-gloss insulating lacquer.

The Bf 109 was better liked by the pilots than the FW 190. Apart from its better high-altitude performance it was the very weakness of its undercarriage that made the Bf 109 more suitable for night operations, simply shearing off in a hard landing. In a similar situation the FW 190 had a tendency to noseover onto its tail and than nothing could help the pilot, seated as he was under a canopy that projected above the fuselage.

Until March 1944 the specially modified Bf 109 and FW 190 night fighters equipped with the FuG 217 Neptun and FuG 350Z Naxos Z were used only by NJGr 10; afterwards some aircraft with Neptun were flown by 6./JG 300, the so-called Kommando Ploger.


@ M_Gunz



Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Excuse me please for asking what's probably already been explained, but AI is Aircraft Intercept or something else?

PS Waldo, Verizon dropped over 50,000 newsgroups because 10 or 12 were reported to have kiddie porn (I don't approve of at all)
so that cut ALL but rec., comp.m, etc. Since May I haven't been to the aviation group. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif What I've missed....

AI = Airborne Intercept. There are at least two very fine books on the British development of it. The first is Radar Days by Bowen. Bowen is arguably the father of British AI.

The second is The History of Air Intercept Radar and the British Nightfighter 1935-1959. Aside from some ommisions of the Fleet Air Arm, and a few mistakes regarding AI MArk VI, it is suberb and will likely be the definitive book for a time. Also the author is a peach and has had unlimited time for me and my endless questions and pleadings for details.

There is also the 6 Volume History of the British Signals service. Which is all but imposible to get a copy of. For example there are only two known copies in my country.

As for alt.binaries.multimedia.aviation there have been some good postings. If you want to get back in the game the global consensus seems to favour Giganews. Though I go with the slightly cheaper Newshosting.com

Flight_boy1990
01-03-2009, 02:06 PM
Hmm,weird.It looks like you cannot trust to any sources those days... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif (kiddin')
Well in that case i believe that they used the A-5 as an test machine,i don't think that anyone normal individual is going to release his newest;most important;most dangerous and secret weapon in an crappy,old version of whatever it is.By the time that the FUG-217 Neptun J was ready for testing and combat use,the A_5 was an old machine.
And with mass production of FW-190 i meant Night Fighter converting and production.The A-6 (designated R-11) was the most widely used of the 190's as night fighter.
Here's another proof,this is the blueprint of the FW-190 A-6/R11,that the first of your scanned document is showing (the machine of Oblt Bretschnider,latter modification):
http://i293.photobucket.com/albums/mm63/GringoBG/fw190a.jpg (sry but photobucket said it's word for the bad resolution,i hope that you can see what's written...)

M_Gunz
01-03-2009, 06:26 PM
Originally posted by Waldo.Pepper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Excuse me please for asking what's probably already been explained, but AI is Aircraft Intercept or something else?

PS Waldo, Verizon dropped over 50,000 newsgroups because 10 or 12 were reported to have kiddie porn (I don't approve of at all)
so that cut ALL but rec., comp.m, etc. Since May I haven't been to the aviation group. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif What I've missed....

AI = Airborne Intercept. There are at least two very fine books on the British development of it. The first is Radar Days by Bowen. Bowen is arguably the father of British AI.

The second is The History of Air Intercept Radar and the British Nightfighter 1935-1959. Aside from some ommisions of the Fleet Air Arm, and a few mistakes regarding AI MArk VI, it is suberb and will likely be the definitive book for a time. Also the author is a peach and has had unlimited time for me and my endless questions and pleadings for details.

There is also the 6 Volume History of the British Signals service. Which is all but imposible to get a copy of. For example there are only two known copies in my country.

As for alt.binaries.multimedia.aviation there have been some good postings. If you want to get back in the game the global consensus seems to favour Giganews. Though I go with the slightly cheaper Newshosting.com </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

TKS Waldo. I really will have to get a news service wedged into my budget. Plain old web is a bit stifling IYKWIM.
Firefox Download Helper has been a gap filler though, if I wee it on Youtube then I can probably save as FLV.
I will check into rates, I miss the aviation group and haven't gotten new Dr. Who (melodrama fix) in months as it is....

Waldo.Pepper
01-03-2009, 09:19 PM
Originally posted by Flight_boy1990:
Hmm,weird.It looks like you cannot trust to any sources those days... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif (kiddin')

I don't think you ever can. (Sadly I am not kidding. I wish this was not the case.) None of us were there, and if we view each historical question as though it were a trial in a court (as I believe we should in order to preserve out skepticism) then proving anything with any definitiveness is quite hard indeed.


Originally posted by Flight_boy1990:
Well in that case i believe that they used the A-5 as an test machine,

Indeed this may be so. However, the Abers book mentions that five from Jg 2 were used, and then a further 35 later on with some 35 Bf as well. This sounds to me like an organization trying to hedge its bets. Keeping many irons in the fire. (Rather than selecting "the best option" (whatever BEST is) that was theoretically available.


Originally posted by Flight_boy1990:
i don't think that anyone normal individual is going to release his newest;most important;most dangerous and secret weapon in an crappy,old version of whatever it is.

This may be so for an individual, but an critically important thing to remember is that large organizations often do not make rational decisions. It was commonplace for both sides to "release his newest; most important; most dangerous and secret weapon in an crappy, old version of whatever it is."

(Furthermore - those in power would have to believe that it was the "newest; most important ..." first for this argument to be persuasive.)

In the case of the British - think of the pioneering efforts with AI being installed in Blenheims! As if that combination would result in an effective night fighter. Originally they thought of installing the thing in Fairey Battles.

Again later in the war when Mosquitos were (in theory) available for the installation of AI Mk VII and AI Mk VIII, these two sets were first installed in the (by then) widely recognized as inadequate Beaufighter!

Proof positive I think that you cannot rely upon large organizations do not make "rational" (from our point of view at least) decisions. A further case in point consider Flensburg.

From Abers (yet again) page 126 -

"From late autumn 1943 onwards quite a few victories were also achieved with the passive homing devices, the FuG 227 Flensburg-Halbe and the FuG 350Z Naxos Z. Flensburg-Halbe, also known as ASV-Halbe. had been under test since September 1942. It detected the emissions from British tail-warning radars up to a range of 100 km (62 mis), and occasionally even up to 200 km (124 mis). From this distance the night fighter radio/radar operator could guide his pilot to the enemy bomber with deadly accuracy as long as its tail-warning radar remained switched on. In such situations even the hardest evasive manoeuvres by the bomber could not shake off the night fighter. (I think that this is an overstatement.) Though the FuG 221a Rosendaal-Halbe homer also reacted to the emissions from British tail-warning radars, this device was only used in small numbers because its centrally positioned aerial precluded the use of the SN-2 (Flensburg had low-drag wing aerials)."

"Oddly enough, despite this record of operational success only 250 Flensburg sets were built individually by various small engineering firms because the powers-that-be did not want to 'burden' ihe big companies with its production!"

Had the large organization operated rationally (and with access to adequate information) they would have utilized Flensburg more.

Furthermore, there are some false assumptions within your opinion I think. Some of which are..

a). That there were enough of the latest machines to go around and that they were not needed elsewhere.

b). You assume that the political military decision making mechanisms operate more perfectly that they did, or indeed do to this day. The Nazi hierarchy had, throughout their tenure in power, favored individuals and units which I would submit would have gotten their pick of scarce resources sooner than others.

Additionally radar development in Germany was hampered by a few factors, such as a mania for security and disdain from high political officials. AI in Germany was officially ignored by the political decision makers until it was very nearly too late to do much about it at all.

Consider this passage from Radar Days by Bowen page 129.

"The first Beaufighter, R2055, arrived at FIU on 12 August 1940 and was fitted with a Mark IV Al radar"the final version of that particular brand of Al radar. There was a momentary hitch when the aircraft was damaged during a daylight attack on Tangmere, after which FIU moved to temporary quarters at Shoreham. The first operational sortie was made by Jumbo Ashfield on 4-5 September but, unfortunately, after only two or three such flights, the aircraft was lost on the night of 12-13 September. It was thought to have gone down into the sea off Boulogne with Flight Lieutenant Ker-Ramsey as pilot.

It was subsequently found that Flight Lieutenant Ker-Ramsey was taken prisoner of war, which suggests that the aircraft was not greatly damaged. Whether it was salvaged by the Germans, who thus found the secret of the air-interception radar, remains a mystery to this day. However, it is on record that very shortly afterwards General Martini of German Air Intelligence asked theTelefunken Company whether it was possible to build an airborne radar to assist the German night fighters operating in Holland. Construction of a German version of airborne radar began early in 1941 and the design had many features which were similar to the British model, including the display system which was identical."

And also from Abers (yet again).. p39.

"As already mentioned, Kammhuber had called for an airborne electronic locator in autumn 1940. Goring, who did not approve of the way night fighting development was going - he thought it too big, too expensive and too inflexibly led - rejected this demand as too tar fetched (or, as he put it, 'a fighter cannot have things sprouting from its head'), and with that the matter was settled as far as he was concerned."

Same source.. p.40

"The Rechlin test pilots gave the new radar a good report, but stressed one major disadvantage common to all airborne radars mass-produced by German industry during the war: high-drag of the aerials, which reduced the maximum speed of the Bf 110 by at least 40 km/h (24.8 mph). Major Helm, who led the experimental detachment at Rechlin and later the experimental centre for radar development at Werneuchen, then tried to find out if it was possible to retract the antennae into the fuselage or at least make them more streamlined. Impossible with the decimelric AI radar, this would have worked with the centimetric radar. But experiments in that line had been stopped once again in 1941 as a result of Hitler's order that no more new developments should be started during the war."


Originally posted by Flight_boy1990:
By the time that the FUG-217 Neptun J was ready for testing and combat use,the A_5 was an old machine.

Obviously. But as we have seen this is an insufficient reason to to condemn it. The A5 had the important quality that it shared with the Blenheim (when the British were looking for a mount for their new AI Mark III sets). It was available, and that was enough.

I think I have gone on long enough. But lastly, I could not read the scan you posted, (Photobucket Bah!) But I would like to so could you please email it to me? Thanks.

Copperhead311th
01-03-2009, 11:18 PM
I'm just gonna say 1 thing and then duck out of here.

As much as i love the P-61....if it gets done....it'll never be done right. Some one will pork it so it flies like a B-25.
After all American planes are dogs right?
I'm not saying.....i'm just saying. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

(runs out ducking the shoes fling at my head)

skarden
01-04-2009, 01:23 AM
Come on now copperhead no need to be a negative nelly,when the P-61's done how about you take it for a flight and try it for yourself instead of guessing(at best since you'v never tried any mods at all)how its gunna be done.

come on over,it's safe I swear(hides t-boots behind back) http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/crackwhip.gif

Flight_boy1990
01-04-2009, 03:01 PM
Waldo i'll send you the picture gladly,but i can't find any mail of yours.

Waldo.Pepper
01-04-2009, 05:00 PM
Originally posted by Flight_boy1990:
Waldo I'll send you the picture gladly,but i can't find any mail of yours.

Sorry I thought you had noticed it earlier in the thread. waldo.pepper@hotmail.com



Originally posted by Copperhead311th:
As much as i love the P-61....if it gets done....it'll never be done right.

I don't think it sounds like you to be so pessimistic! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

If the P-61 gets added to the game it should be able to out turn a P-47. Consider the following.

It is from Northrop P-61 Black Widow by Gerry R Pape p. 64 (I think that this makes the third time I have posted this story over the years!)

"The 548th had an Officer's Club that was frequented by the 318th's CO and his friends. Besides enjoying the liquor at the club, the men of the 318th enjoyed poking fun at the 548th, using such snide remarks as "bomber pilots." Col. Dave Curtis, CO of the Black Widow boys, eventually became fed up with this continuous ribbing and announced that he could outdo McAfee and his P-47 with his trusty P-61.

Colonel Curtis told the story this way: "His response was an offer to 'load up the guns, and we'll go up and have it out!' "Though alcohol was an active ingredient in the situation, reason eventually prevailed. His bet with me was $700 to be decided by superiority in two of three competitions. (1) Shortest takeoff roll. (2) Top speed in level flight to be done on the deck over the ocean to preclude cheating by diving. (3) Simulated air-to air combat with gun cameras for documentation.

"In due time the contest started. His Jug was stripped of all reasonably removable weight, including guns and armor plate ; I don't know what else. I reduced my ammo load to 20 rounds of 20 mm. The word had gotten around. A crowd of many hundreds had collected and many thousands of dollars were to change owners. The two aircraft lined up, wing tip to wing tip.

"He ran power up to full bore with water injection (2,800 hp) and released brakes. As the aircraft moved forward the tail wheel came up, then back down as the main gear lifted off. He literally hung it on the prop, with tail wheel rolling after the main gear lifted clear. I was impressed (as were many spectators who told me later they figured then that it was over except the payoff).

"My turn. Water injection (2x2,250 hp) and released the brakes. When the air speed showed 75 mph, I started the flaps down and lifted the nose to a steep climbing altitude. I had beaten him by 75 yards!

"In level flight we lined up again, tip-to-tip. At his nod we each turned 90 degrees in opposite directions; a minute later we each turned 180 degrees to come at each other near head on. It had been agreed we would break as we passed-then everything goes. Both of us turned as hard as we could, for a few moments it looked questionable. Then the greater maneuverability of the Black Widow began to show; I moved inexorably towards his tail. He dove sharply, but I remained behind him; but always staying higher (height is nearly always an advantage). Eventually I was right behind his tail, my camera whirling. 'Best two out of three,' was his radio call.

"Back up we went and again squared away. This time I pitched sharply up as we broke. In less than one turn I was grinning through my sights at an uncomfortably rotated face, 'Let's go home!'

"I had frames of gun film with nothing but Jug in them. Several claimed they could recognize the Colonel's panic filled face. They never came to our club again."

However, I think that because the needs of night fighting in the pacific theatre were vastly different from Europe - the P-61 (despite likely being my favorite plane of all time) is over all a mediocre performer.

Mosquito is faster, same radar - nearly same firepower - far greater range. However, I think that the P-61 did useful work in Europe - particularly as an Intruder. Poor climb (and to a lesser extent range) seems to have hamper the plane in the Pacific though.

I don't think that there will be any trouble at all on finding information on the SCR-720 radar in the P-61.

Aaron_GT
01-04-2009, 05:31 PM
Mosquito is faster, same radar - nearly same firepower - far greater range. However, I think that the P-61 did useful work in Europe - particularly as an Intruder. Poor climb (and to a lesser extent range) seems to have hamper the plane in the Pacific though.

Better bombload on the P-61. The NF marks of Mosquito could potentially carry 2000 lbs, in theory the P-61 6400lbs in the -B version. The Mosquito was rather limited as its wings were not stressed for more than one 500 lb bomb per side, although I think the B.35 with max external fuel would be at ~750lb a side, but the next bomb up would have been 1000lb.

Waldo.Pepper
01-05-2009, 04:10 AM
Better bombload on the P-61

While this is certainly true on paper - the Schiffer book on the P-61's of the 421 NFS mentions repeatedly (perhaps exclusively) makes the point that the P-61's would routinely carry a bomb load of only 1000lbs. In the form of 4 250 pounders.

This passage from page 36 is typical

"Pharr was also doing his part to deliver the message to the Japanese that the 421st NFS was there to make an impact in the war. On April 17th he demolished a bridge just north of Palas Point with a salvo of four 250-lb. bombs:

I look off one morning fully loaded and headed for the Japanese occupied area. It was a matter of looking for a target of opportunity, with no real idea of what that might be. Pretty soon a target appeared; a small bridge. I circled around to see if there were any guns defending the site and to get a better idea of the size of the bridge. Then 1 decided to make a high speed pass and drop all four bombs in salvo."

Still, I would agree that this is more than was typically carried by Mossies on Intruder missions.

Viikate_
01-10-2009, 01:57 PM
More realistic Waldo?

http://www.simmerspaintshop.com/~viikate/FuG220_2.jpg

Video: http://www.simmerspaintshop.co...ikate/FuG220Test.wmv (http://www.simmerspaintshop.com/%7Eviikate/FuG220Test.wmv)

It's still WIP, since LesniHU will be improving the code. With this it will be also possible to create chaff window.

FuG 220 will probably have such commands as range toggle, gain, on/off toggle for cat & mouse games if RWR is implemented.

Waldo.Pepper
01-10-2009, 05:40 PM
Wow! OK now I am getting a little worked up. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I took the liberty of modifying the brightness/contrast of the image/video for the purposes of the discussion. (As I could barely see anything.)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v516/WaldoPepper/Radar/FuG220_2b.jpg

And here is the video...

http://www.zshare.net/video/539656376e4e0d6c/

Some hopefully some constructive comments.

1. I think that during those moments when the plane is facing downward, that the ground returns should come down the time trace and fill the image on the indicator unit. Which is in part why the corkscrew evasive tactic adopted by Bomber Command was difficult to counter.

2. I think the CRT's of the indicator unit should be brighter. (They did after all emit light, rather than be merely luminescent) In the early installations of the British Mark I set the glowing of the vacuum tubes was thought by some to be bright enough to compromise the safety of the Blenheim NF.

3. I am unsure if there should be further random interference appearing on the CRT's. (coming in from either side. Early British operator's (AI Mark IV users) describe this as 'grass'.

I must say that this is extremely impressive! (Extremely!) THAT is superb!

Images of FuG 220 Lichtenstein SN-2 (any version) as installed in the cockpit of a Bf-110 are exceedingly rare. There is only one that I know of! There is another one that is a very clever

composite image that was included in the Monogram book on the Bf-110 on page 21. That composite image including the original caption is below.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v516/WaldoPepper/Radar/Bf110G.jpg

I think I am right is saying that you and your group are modeling the FuG 220 Lichtenstein SN-2d set - but in case anyone is interested in the earlier (cruder and more interesting) FuG 220 Lichtenstein SN-2a. (A model)When the FuG 220 Lichtenstein SN-2 was first introduced, the short
range performance was terrible. To compensate another radar was also installed along side the set. This set was the FuG 212 Lichtenstein C-1 Weitwinkel (Wide-Angle). The indicator unit
(display) of which is the next picture.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v516/WaldoPepper/Radar/th_Ln28202.jpg (http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v516/WaldoPepper/Radar/?action=view&current=Ln28202.jpg)

Notice that the control knobs are located along the bottom edge of the unit. They were poorly located for ergonomics. Kind of like early personal computers. (286's and Hp's had their on/off
switches conveniently located at the rear of the box! Easier/cheaper to make but not so user friendly!)Okay so getting back to the cockpit of the Bf-110 again. Here is the only known picture showing an SN-2 installation.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v516/WaldoPepper/Radar/Bf110G_radar_01w.jpg

Notice please at the top of the image you can just barely see the three control knobs of the display unit for the FuG 212 Lichtenstein C-1 Weitwinkel (Wide-Angle). Because they located the knobs on the bottom, and also due to the confined space in the Bf-110, they had little choice but to hang the indicator unit from the framing of the canopy.I have done a crude composite image of the installation for my own needs - but you can use your imagination here and just slide the
three scopes unit into position in your mind.



FuG 220 will probably have such commands as range toggle, gain, on/off toggle for cat & mouse games if RWR is implemented.

Re RWR. The FuG 220 Lichtenstein SN-2d (the D model) did have a rear facing capability. When it is installed in Ju-88 series aircraft there is a rear facing antenna. So if it is installed in
a Bf-110 series aircraft then either ---

a) there is no rear facing antenna and the FuG 220 Lichtenstein SN-2d still retains its rear facing capability (in a manner similar to the way that the British AI Mark IV did. (this is highly unlikely in my opinion.)

or

b) the rear facing capability is not available when installed in Bf-110 series aircraft and that explains why there is no rear facing antenna. Just to try and keep everyone else up to date LesniHU and Vikrate are in my opinion doing first rate work here. They are using actual physics in their effort, rather that doing something false and easier in the creation of their display. That alone is very impressive.


It's still WIP, since LesniHU will be improving the code. With this it will be also possible to create chaff window.

When FuG 220 Lichtenstein SN-2 (series) was first introduced the allies had no idea of it existence or the knowledge of its operating frequency. As such the SN-2 series enjoyed a period (8 months) in which is was not troubled by Window/Chaff/Duppel/"Deceiving Paper" (The Japanese term for Window I include this for LeBillFish.)

Excellent.

CUJO_1970
01-10-2009, 06:24 PM
This is just absolutely amazing stuff guys.

It could be the case that modded Il/2 may possibly exceed BoB/SoW (initially at least)possibly in _some aspects_ such as this radar.

That is meant as a compliment to those in the community working on these great mods - not as a slight on Oleg and his team.

Now before anyone gets all bunchy on me...I'm counting down the days until the release of BoB/SoW and I'm actually delaying a new computer purchase for it alone.

stalkervision
01-10-2009, 06:27 PM
anyone know the German electronic aircraft defense system that picked up British tail warning radar?

arthursmedley
01-10-2009, 06:37 PM
Originally posted by stalkervision:
anyone know the German electronic aircraft defense system that picked up British tail warning radar?

Flensburg?

Tully__
01-10-2009, 06:45 PM
Originally posted by Waldo.Pepper:
...Point with a salvo of four 250-lb. bombs:

I look off one morning fully loaded and headed for the Japanese occupied area.....
Without having any references to hand, it occurs to me that perhaps the context here is that the base only had 250lbers in stock and with the currently fitted hardpoints 4 of these was all that would fit on the aircraft? I throw it back to the experts... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

PanzerAce
01-11-2009, 03:32 PM
I have nothing to add to this thread other than I can't wait for this to be done. (Well, and the various night fighters.)

Waldo.Pepper
01-11-2009, 05:05 PM
Originally posted by arthursmedley:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
anyone know the German electronic aircraft defense system that picked up British tail warning radar?

Flensburg? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes this was Flensburg which homed on British Monica tail warning Radars.

Briefly the Germans also had...
FuG 221 Freya-Halbe, which homed on some airborne jamming equipment.

FuG 221a Rosendaal-Halbe, which homes on ASV (Anti-Surface-Vessel) signals.

FuG 350 Naxos Z (a whole range of these) and FuG 351 Korfu, which homed on H2S emissions. (and any other emitters in the 3cm to 9cm range.)

Earlier in the war the Germans also mounted IR devices code named Spanner I-IV but they fell into disuse when AI took over.



Originally posted by Tully__:
... perhaps the context here is that the base only had 250lbers in stock and with the currently fitted hardpoints 4 of these was all that would fit on the aircraft?... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Yup maybe. Not to drift too far off topic, but I had thought about that, and indeed I would suggest this as a possibility as well. But I think this is not the case. Rather I think that it is common for us to have a pretty unsophisticated understanding about payload.

We all see what a plane can carry (their book value). And assume that this is what the plane will carry on each mission flown. After all why would anyone want to carry less than the maximum load? When in reality the situation is far less clear.

An aircraft's payload is consumed by fuel and weapons. Want to fly further (say to Berlin or Tokyo and back) or have a longer loiter time? Then carry more fuel, and reduce weapon load.

I think it is the case that a B-17 in practice rarely carried over 6,000 lbs in Europe because of the ranges needed. Hardly the book max. Or it could have been due to weather, or the type of target they expected. Perhaps they were saving larger bombs for a higher value target? Whatever the reason, the plane (a plane - any plane) rarely carries it max bomb load. So this is not much of an factor.

Well the why is because it is complicated in the real world (and not just due to logistics, which could have been a factor in this case (but I think not). The real world is complex unlike hyperlobby, where every plane which is on a bombing mission always seems to carry the maximum weapon load possible.

In Night Fighter Ace by Tony Spooner page 66-67 he makes the following points about the dangers of overloading an aircraft. After reading it I am sure we can see why a pilot might want to carry less than the max load.

"The history of almost every type of aircraft used in the Second World War on either side followed the same course of 'development': more fuel for greater range, followed by more guns or bombs for increased effectiveness and, if it was still able to fly, then more fuel and more guns and/or bombs were added. A type designed to fly safely at (say) 25,000 Ib maximum weight would soon be operating at 27,000 Ib; then 28,000 and in the end at over 30,000 Ib. Also, the aircraft's original clean aerodynamic lines would, bit by bit, be eroded by the addition of new devices. Some idea of the dangers inherent in this process can be obtained by following the career of the German Heinkel 111 bomber. During 1944, this pre-1939 bomber was modified to carry a VI pilotless plane - the so-called 'Doodle-bug' - after the original launching sites across the Channel had been overrun. This massive weapon was loaded under one wing and thereby unbalanced the aircraft as well as overloading it. The pilots were then expected to fly over the North Sea at only 50 ft in order to approach Britain without being picked up by radar. The experiment was stopped after seventy-seven Heinkels and their crews were lost on such sorties. Yet only sixteen of them were claimed by the defending fighters sent to intercept them. Sixteen for the RAF: sixty-one for 'Sir Isaac'?"

WOLFMondo
01-12-2009, 07:38 AM
Originally posted by Waldo.Pepper:
Still, I would agree that this is more than was typically carried by Mossies on Intruder missions.

Depends on the version. A mossie night fighter was pretty much a dedicated night fighter, both offensive and defensive but mossie intruder missions were carried out mainly by other variants.

KG26_Alpha
01-12-2009, 10:21 AM
If this is the model they are replicating here's some data from the bf110 landed in Switzerland.

The German Lichtenstein FuG220 intercept radar was installed in twin engine
night fighters. In addition to the numerical coding, it had the code Lichtenstein
SN2. The Lichtenstein FuG220 intercept radar has a relatively wide cone of
search, around 45, direction finding for flying targets was good, being 1.65:1
for 10 off centre at an operational frequency of 90 MHz. The forward cover
against flying targets was excellent and the ambiguities not yet serious. The
Lichtenstein FuG220 had an instrumented range of 8 km, however the greatest
practical range of the set was limited to the flight altitude, beyond ground clutter
appeared on the scopes. The minimum detectable range of the set was limited by
the T/R switch around 900 meters. For to improve the limited near range resolution
of the Lichtenstein FuG220 an additional Lichtenstein FuG202 was installed
in the Messerschmitt Bf 110 G-4, C9 + EN night fighter.

Lichtenstein FuG 220 Airborne Intercept Radar
Developed 1943 at the Telefunken-Labaratory Zehlendorf-Berlin

System Parameters

Frequency: 91 MHz
Transmit peak power: 2 kW
Receiver Sensitivity: - 90 dBm
Antenna Gain: 5 dB
Antenna split frequency: 25 Hz
Pulse Length 1 ?s
Near Resolution 1000 Meter
PRF: 292, 295, 298 Hz
Instrumented Range: 8 km

Hypothetical calculation of the effective detection range against
flying targets:

Parameters:

R Maximum Detection Range in meters
Pt Transmit Peak Power (2000 Watts = 63 dBm)
G Antenna-Gain (G2 = 10 dB)
? Wavelength (3.192 = 10.35 dB)
?t Radar Target Cross Section in Square Meters
(4?)3 Sphere Surface (twice) (= 33 dB)
MDS Signal plus noise equal to twice noise (- 90 dB)

Pt G2 ?2 ?t 63 dBm 10 db 10.35 dB 0 or10 or16 dB
R4 = ---------------- = -----------------------------------------------
(4?)3 MDS 33 dB (-90 dBm)

R for ?t 1 m2 (small fighter) = < 3200 meters
R for ?t 10 m2(HE111/HE177) = < 5800 meters
R for ?t 40 m2(B24 or Lancaster bombers) = < 8000 meters

Feathered_IV
03-09-2009, 05:17 AM
Viikate, you still around? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/crackwhip.gif

munitions-magne
03-09-2009, 08:03 PM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">IRL the gunners of British bombers seldom fired

Most crews shot down didn't even see anything to shoot at. Analyses of losses showed no trend for more experienced crews and on analysis it was concluded that the fire was from below (Shrage Musik) and the enemy craft were very hard to spot against a dark ground. Much debate then raged on whether there was much point having gunners at all. Some crews (seems prevalent on Free French Lancasters) removed dorsal turrets. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

My father was a Lancaster pilot. He gave strict orders to his air gunners not to fire unless they were already under attack as it would give away the aircraft's position. The Lancs defence depended upon the gunners acting as spotters and providing alerts to the pilot of when to corkscrew and in which directrion (port or starboard). In his words the guns were there for 'moral support'

Cold_Gambler
03-11-2009, 10:53 AM
This thread is a fascinating and informative read!

Thanks to all participants, and in particular the creators of this mod.

I_ZG52_Gaga
04-11-2009, 03:10 AM
And all these years "they" said it couldn't be Done!!!

At Last NachtJagd is a Reality for IL2 !!!

Most Excellent !!

Uufflakke
04-11-2009, 03:37 AM
Originally posted by Feathered_IV:
Viikate, you still around? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/crackwhip.gif

I was wondering the same thing. Haven't heard anything anymore of this project for quite a while now. And how about his Fokker D.XXI flyable and AI planes? I thought they were close to completion.

BigKahuna_GS
04-11-2009, 09:51 AM
S!

This all very exciting.
I haven't flown any of the mods yet and I kind of lost intrest in flying this sim because
of some of the modeling choices.


I sent this to 1C back in 2003 maybe this can modeled as well:

G-Suits & RT-34/APS-13 Tail Warning Radar (USA)


The 8th AF had issued G-suits to all of it's fighter pilots starting in June and finishing by fall of 1944. We also had a friendly debate on which held more merit seat position or G-suit. The best would be both used in combination at the same time. Both the RAF and USAAF used G-suits.

A mechnical device that is basically like a big blood pressure cuff will win out every time vs just seat position alone. Case in point is the Korean War. F-86 Sabre pilots reported being able to pull more G's than Mig15's and watched as many spun out of control or simply departed the flight course they were on due to pilot blackout.

Great artical on the inventors of the G-suit:
http://www.space.gc.ca/asc/eng..._aviation.asp#anti-g (http://www.space.gc.ca/asc/eng/astronauts/osm_aviation.asp#anti-g)

http://www.space.gc.ca/asc/img/MkVI_gsuit.jpg
http://www.space.gc.ca/asc/img/MkVII_gsuit.jpg

MIGHTY EIGHTH WAR MANUAL, by Ron Freeman

Heres the relevant text regarding G-suits from MIGHT EIGHTH WAR MANUAL:

QUOTE-

G-SUITS
Pre-war work had been carried out in the US to perfect some form of pressure suit that would prevent pilot 'blackout' in aircraft performaing sharp manoeuvres at speed. The benefit in fighter combat was clear, for the prevention of blackout would allow a pliot to make tighter turns. The Eight Air Force became interested in the American Berger anti-G suits in September 1943 and in early 1944 acquired sufficient to conduct tests. Comparative tests were run with the RAF water pressure anti-G device, the Frank suit. The results showed both equally effective, and as 9th Air Force had a priority on the Berger suit, VIII FC decided for the time being to use the Frank suit as this was more readily available. During April 1944 the 4th Group gace the suit an extended trial but pilots took a dislike to it because of bulk, weight, heat and discomfort, to say nothin of the difficulties if it sprang a leak. Faced with this disapproval, VIII FC decided to abandon the Frank and wait for the Berger. By 3 June sufficient Berger G-3 suits had been obtained from 9th Air Force to equip the 339th Group, who quickly appreciated the benefits and wore the suits on every mission. A larger supply of G-3s was not available until October, but all groups were equipped by November.

____

Here is the scan of the Anti G-Suit the US was using in 1944. This G-suit was rated very high by the 75 pilots (including British pilots) who tried it out at the Joint Fighter Confrence 16-23 October 1944, Pg 314. The G-suit was rated excellent for pulling short high G rated turns. Pulling as much as 7 G's without graying out were noted while utilizing this G-suit, some pilots were able to pull 7.9 G's. A 4-g turn was held for 720degrees with no sign of fade or blackout.

I researched dates and times the G-suit was implemented into service. I attended a WW2 Fighter Pilot Symposium last year where many of the pilots wore this G-suit.
_______________


This email is from Col. Bud Anderson:

Dear Keith, We had g-suits in the later part of WW II. The first type suit used was a water suit that was quickly discarded for then the chaps type suit that was pressurized with air. They were much the same as the air force used for years after WW II. I am not sure where you could get much information on them. I wrote about them in my book. I leave tomorrow for a few days. If you have some specific question I could try to anser them maybe next week Mar 10-12 Bye (bud anderson)

From Bud's Anderson's book :
-"To Fly & Fight"-pg161
Col. Anderson-"With g-suits, we could fly a little harder, turn a little bit tighter. We could pull maybe 1 extra G now which gave us an edge. There was no resistance to wearing them. Not at all. <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">We understood what they meant right away. Wearing the G suit was the same as making the airplane better."</span>

----------------------------------------



RT-34/APS-13 Tail Warning Radar (USA)


"The RT-34/APS-13 is a low power UHF tail warning radar transmitter/receiver which was used in Allied aeroplanes such as the P51 Mustang and also the P-38L, P-47D, P-61, P-63, P-82D in the later stages of the war."

Tail warning radar was also fitted to some RAF bombers (Lancaster, Mosquito, not sure about Halifax) although I am not sure how regularly it was fitted or what the model numbers were.

Airborne Radar

Duxford Radio Society

Imperial War Museum, Duxford, England

In fact most all late model USAAF aircraft recieved this radar device including the P51 and P47.

http://www.duxfordradiosociety...uip/aps13/aps13.html (http://www.duxfordradiosociety.org/restoration/conservedequip/aps13/aps13.html)

The RT-34/APS-13 is a low power UHF tail warning radar transmitter/receiver which was used in Allied aeroplanes such as the P51 Mustang and also the P-38L, P-47D, P-61, P-63, P-82D in the later stages of the war.

http://www.duxfordradiosociety.org/restoration/conservedequip/aps13/aps-13-cockpit1-600p.jpg

The equipment operates at 420 MHz with a receiver IF of 30 MHz and is powered by an internal rotary generator which is supplied from the aircraft 27V dc system.

The electro-mechanical construction is all aluminium, and the equipment uses all miniature glass valves except for the voltage stabiliser which is a VR105V (0C3). The PA is two 6J6s.

A modified APS-13 was employed as a radar fuse for the €˜LittleBoy€ atomic bomb dropped on the Japanese city of Hiroshima.
This APS-13 equipment was manufactured by RCA, Camden, New Jersey, USA under a 1944 contract number 13711:CRV 458-DAY-44.

This equipment example is in excellent condition and appears to be complete mechanically and almost complete electrically except for one component. This equipment has been cleaned and repaired and is now functioning, except that it is missing one large wire-wound resistor.

It is expected that with time, this equipment will be returned to complete working order.

http://nj7p.org/millist/sch/aps-13.gif

Airborne Tail-warning RADAR, AN/APS-13(XA-1)
JAN Type: AN/APS-13(XA-1)
Nomenclature: Airborne Tail-warning RADAR
Components: RT-34/APS-13 Receiver-Transmitter, AS-62/APS-13 Antenna System
Weight: 20
Mode: Pulse PRF:300-450, PW: 0.4-0.5
Frequency Range: 415 MHz
Power Input: 27 VDC @ 3.25 A
Power Output: 450 W Peak
Description: Airborne RADAR system for use in day fighters to warn the
pilot of the approach of an enemy aircraft from the rear. 3 element Yagi
on vertical fin of plane. Indication: red light and bell when another
aircraft enters coverage zone.
Source: US RADAR Survey, 1 Nov 44
Manufacturer: General Electric/RCA
Created: Wed Jul 12 19:24:04 2000
Last Modified: Wed Jul 12 19:24:04 2000

Airborne Tail-warning RADAR, AN/APS-13(XA-2)
JAN Type: AN/APS-13(XA-2)
Nomenclature: Airborne Tail-warning RADAR
Components: RT-34/APS-13 Receiver-Transmitter, AS-62/APS-13 Antenna System
Weight: 20
Mode: Pulse PRF:300-450, PW: 0.4-0.5
Frequency Range: 415 MHz
Power Input: 27 VDC @ 3.25 A
Power Output: 450 W Peak
Description: Airborne RADAR system for use in day fighters to warn the
pilot of the approach of an enemy aircraft from the rear. 3 element Yagi
on vertical fin of plane. Indication: red light and bell when another
aircraft enters coverage zone.
Source: US RADAR Survey, 1 Nov 44
Manufacturer: General Electric/RCA
Created: Wed Jul 12 19:24:04 2000
Last Modified: Wed Jul 12 19:24:04 2000

Airborne Tail-warning RADAR, AN/APS-13
JAN Type: AN/APS-13
Nomenclature: Airborne Tail-warning RADAR
Components: RT-34/APS-13 Receiver-Transmitter, AS-62/APS-13 Antenna System
Weight: 20
Mode: Pulse PRF:300-450, PW: 0.4-0.5
Frequency Range: 415 MHz
Power Input: 27 VDC @ 3.25 A
Power Output: 450 W Peak
Description: Airborne RADAR system for use in day fighters to warn the
pilot of the approach of an enemy aircraft from the rear. 3 element Yagi
on vertical fin of plane. Indication: red light and bell when another
aircraft enters coverage zone.
Source: US RADAR Survey, 1 Nov 44
Manufacturer: General Electric/RCA
Created: Wed Jul 12 19:24:04 2000
Last Modified: Fri Jul 21 19:27:46 2000

This is the entry from the old database:

AN/APS-13
Radar set, Tail warning, 450 MHz, 0.5 W, Pulse, 27 VDC, Major component:
RT-34/APS-13.

Viikate_
04-11-2009, 03:16 PM
Originally posted by Uufflakke:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Feathered_IV:
Viikate, you still around? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/crackwhip.gif

I was wondering the same thing. Haven't heard anything anymore of this project for quite a while now. And how about his Fokker D.XXI flyable and AI planes? I thought they were close to completion. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lack of AAA news doesn't mean that it's not being worked on or not going to be released at some point. AAA is hardly any official/legal instance for all development.

Besides I was banned from AAA after being invited there to give a guidance and help. So that's how great that community is. ElAurens' description of drama queen picassos was spot on.

Uufflakke
04-11-2009, 03:47 PM
Welcome back and good to know you are still around and working on the mods. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

I don't always agree with the comments by El Aurens but in this case about the behaviour by some AAA modders I do agree. He is darnn right. I've seen some examples of arrogance and impoliteness over there.
But luckily there is more than just AAA.

Flight_boy1990
04-11-2009, 06:25 PM
Originally posted by Uufflakke:
...and working on the mods...
Actually what Viikate is doing have to be called "Modelling",not "Modding".
What Viikate does is "Modelling",i guess that all here know the difference between "modelling" and "modding".

You can see it from his signature for exemple.

Feathered_IV
04-12-2009, 03:54 AM
Cheers Viikate, very happy to hear there still a chance that it may be completed. It's one of the Holy-Grail projects for me. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

Razor1uk-LMC01
04-20-2009, 07:25 AM
Are there any updates to this thread? or has it been 'cancelled' or moved off-site?

While I have only ever had modded games when the mod tools was officially released (GTAVice City (modded vehicle parameters and models) & Battlefield Vietnam: Point of Exisrence Mod (#1 MOTY 2007 for BF2: Point of Existence), I am intrigued as to how this Radar Moddeling is going, even if AAA membership is un-officially blocked.

I recently read some books relating to this particular story, 'The Radar War' & one about the German side of the story; forgot its name, but its not a thick book, and as far as dating and patents go.
The Germans had radar well before anyone else;1909? (I believe when it was radio interference from moving objects was first noticed).
Even if the politicos and commercial shipping industries didn't take notice when primitive radar was first advertised as a Ship Anti-CollisionWireless System, due to the fact that it was felt Ships Radios (Marconi) and Morse Code would be more than enough without the added 'complexity' of a rival companies small box with 2 arials and negligable power requirement and warning horn/speaker.

Please someone advice/post a reply to if this is still on-site, running or dead, thanks.

Razor1uk

thelane
05-02-2009, 04:43 AM
I have only just found this post, and i must say i am amazed the work done looks outstanding, is it still being worked on?

The radar/electronic war of world war 2 i find very interesting and would love to have more representation of it in il2 1946.

some things i would like to see are

representation of H2S (using in game navigation map as PPI)

representation of oboe (again using in game map, maybe using waypoints, with sounds to tell you if you are on the right path, and to give bomb release signal)

representation of window,(i seem to remember Bee working on something like this)

Airborne intercept radar for aliied planes

representation of radar detectors such as

serrate
monica
perfectos
naxos

maybe a representation of GEE or G-H for navigation and ils for landing at night.

There was a great simulator planned for the pc called Nightbomber which promised to deliver most if not all of the above, but unfortunately it died a death a few years ago.

regards

thelane(slipper)

thelane
05-04-2009, 02:07 PM
Viikate


I posted this message over at AAA, its just some of my thoughts on what radar options i would like to see in IL2. The work you are carrying out looks amazing i have only just come across it. Below i have a list of things i would like to see, do you think any are possible? with your knowledge of programming.

Here are my thoughts on what i would like to see, and maybe possible ways for them to be implemented.I think central to this would be the use of the in-flight map, which could be used as a stand in ground radar, airborne radar, navigation aid. As the game obviously has some way of tracking aircraft in flight

Airborne Intercept Radar

Being worked on for Bf 110 G4, hopefully this will be finished, can form basis for further Airborne Radar for Blenheim, Mossie, He219.With alterations for each type of radar

Oboe

Blind Bombing device, accurate for period, limited range - When setting up an Ai bombing mission the Ai will follow the waypoint and release bombs on target no matter what the time of day or night, and/or weather, maybe this fact could be used to generate a signal if player is left/right of waypoint line, then generate a signal for near target (AI bomb doors open) and finally bombs away(AI bombs gone)

H2S

maybe using in flight map with some sort of "fuzzy" representation of the ground below

Window

I think Bee was looking into something along these lines, maybe a key assigned to deploy window that when activated causes several images of the players plane to be shown on the inflight map, therefore making it hard to distinguish the real aircraft

Various jammers, Mandrel,Shiver,ABC

could block radio transmissions to/from other planes and ground, also make map "black out" for various times to represent jamming

Navigational Aids, GEE, G-h

maybe as default option players position on map could be given a random position, that varies from the exact position shown as default at the moment. maybe a random radius from the true position could be selected each time the game loads, so that the player is never quite sure of their position and has to rely on dead reckoning etc. Various nav aids could improve on the accuracy given (but never exact)

Warning radars, Monica etc

based on work by checkyersix, where he implemented a false gun turret radar which points toward enemy plane

ILS,Blind Approach

based on the HE-111 navigational aid


There are are few options in the game such as the in flight-map, HE-111 nav system. Along with some work already started as mentioned by BEE, Checkyersix that could make a half decent attempt at replicating the above,which i think would add a new dimension to the game, especially with the rumors of some British Bombers like the Lanc and Halifax appearing.

What do you all think ?

i have no programming experience myself, so this is just a wish list. Hopefully it will give some ideas to those far more able than myself who produce the wonderful mods we have at the moment

regards

stalkervision
05-04-2009, 03:25 PM
I really hope it's still being worked on.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

Viikate_
05-12-2009, 05:36 AM
Originally posted by stalkervision:
I really hope it's still being worked on.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

Yes. Along with huge number of other projects.

And could Feathered stop posting false rumors that radars, fokker, SM79, Swordfish, etc. are gone underground and are distributed only to friends and squad members. This is BS and only increases the illegal distribution of the leaked/stolen old, buggy and crappy work.

Show me one finished bug free project that is totally build from scratch with external model, pit and accurate FM. Then estimate how long it took to make this.

Quality over quantity approach takes time.

Razor1uk-LMC01
09-26-2010, 02:26 PM
Any news upon the developments? There's a nice pdf I found relating to Lichtenstein Radar System.
http://www.xs4all.nl/~aobauer/...enstein%20radars.pdf (http://www.xs4all.nl/%7Eaobauer/Lichtenstein%20radars.pdf)